Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mark Garnier

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I rise to speak in support of the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats and new clauses 18 and 19, which were tabled by my wonderful colleague from Plaid, the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).

The witnesses who came before us last week to speak about the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pensions made an incredibly passionate and powerful case for changing the system. We mentioned earlier the Work and Pensions Committee’s report, which suggested that the Government need to look at this issue seriously. I was quite disappointed by the Government’s response, which did not actually say very much. All it said was that changing the system would have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet. Well, yes, it might have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it would have a significant impact for people who are in this situation through absolutely no fault of their own. They did the right thing all the way along, but the company they were with collapsed and the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme has not given them the uplift.

The group of people we are talking about are getting older. They are not young any more. We know that older pensioners are the most likely to be in fuel poverty and to be struggling with the cost of living crisis. They are the ones making the choice about whether to switch on the heating. Given the rate of inflation that we have had in recent years, there is a real argument for utilising a small amount of the PPF’s surplus to provide a level of indexation. The cut-off is very arbitrary; it is just a date that happened to be put in legislation at that time. Were the Government setting up the PPF today, and the compensation schemes for people who lost their pension through no fault of their own, I do not think they would be arguing for not indexing pensions accrued before 1997. That would not be a justifiable position for today’s Government to take.

I am not sure whether the Bill is the right place to do this, but my understanding is that it needs to be done in primary legislation; it cannot be done in secondary legislation. Given what I mentioned earlier about the significant length of time between pieces of primary pension legislation, if the Government do not use the Pension Schemes Bill to address this problem today, on Report or in the House of Lords, when will they? How many more of the pensioners who are suffering from the lack of indexation will have passed away or be pushed into further financial hardship by the time the Government make a decision on this, if they ever intend to?

As I have said, I cannot see a justification for not providing the indexation. We know the PPF levy changes have been put in place because of that surplus, and there is recognition that the surplus exists and has not been invented—the money is there. I understand that the situation is different for the two funds, but particularly with the PPF, I do not understand how any Member of this House, let alone the Government, could argue against making this change to protect pensioners.

It may have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it does not have an impact on the Government’s income, outgoings and ability to spend today. The PPF money cannot be used for anything other than reducing the levy or paying pensions. It is very unusual to have such ringfenced, hypothecated money within the Government’s balance sheet, but this money is ringfenced. The Government cannot decide to spend it on building a new school or funding the NHS. It can be used only for paying the pensions of people whose companies have gone under.

I very much appreciate the hard work of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru on this issue in supporting their constituents, as well as people such as Terry Monk, who gave evidence to us last week along with Mr Sainsbury. Now is the time for the Government to change this to ensure fairness and drag some pensioners out of poverty, so that they have enough money to live on right now during this cost of living crisis.

[Mark Garnier]

I want to follow on from the two powerful speeches by the Liberal Democrat and SNP spokespeople, the hon. Members for Torbay and for Aberdeen North, in highlighting the fact that this problem is—dare I say it—disappearing over time. This feels slightly similar to the ongoing contaminated blood debate, and it is a similar type of thing. The people who would be compensated for the contaminated blood are, for tragic reasons, disappearing. Indeed, I think there are now 86,000 pensioners who were caught up in this particular problem, and the longer this is kicked down the road, the smaller the problem will become, for obvious reasons.

The principle behind this is absolutely right. It is incredibly important that we as a country, society and community look after all these people. Where people have done the right thing and put money into their pension, but it has not followed through, that is a big problem.

One thing does bother me: I do not want to be too political, but the Government have dug themselves a freshly made £30 billion black hole in the last year. Although the SNP spokesperson is absolutely right that the £12 billion in the PPF is available to spend only on pensions, the problem is that because it appears on the country’s balance sheet, if the money to pay the price for this—I think it is £1.8 billion—came out of that, there would be a £1.8 billion increase on the country’s collective balance sheet. The argument would go that it would then reduce it. At some level, fiscal prudence has to come in to make sure we are not creating a deeper black hole. Because of the change of accounting at the back end of last year, this could turn the Government’s £30 billion fiscal black hole into a £32 billion one, even though that money is earmarked only for pensions.

I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will resolve that. I would like him to make an undertaking that we will hear something about it on 26 November, and that there will be something in the Budget to resolve this fiscal conundrum. We need to know where the money will come from, and that the Government have set it aside. This is a perfect opportunity to deal with a problem that has been going on since 1997, and that becomes more profound every time the Office for National Statistics announces the rate of inflation. If the Minister gave us that assurance, I would trust him—being an honourable and decent man—that he could make his current boss get something done about this on 26 November.

Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mark Garnier

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier]

Again, I have no real comments, apart from to ask the Minister, perhaps when winding up, if he could explain how the Government came to the penalty levels of £10,000 for individuals and £100,000 for others. It would be useful to understand what the thinking was behind that.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

My question was not dissimilar to the shadow Minister’s question on the amounts of the penalties—£10,000 for an individual and £100,000 in any other case. There is no delegated authority to raise it beyond those levels. There is an ability to set the amounts, provided they do not go above those. Would the process have to be in primary legislation should the Government wish to raise it above those levels? I am not generally in favour of a level of delegated authority, but if we end up in a situation where inflation is out of control, £10,000 may not seem a significant amount for an individual and £100,000 may not seem significant for a larger organisation. They may not be enough to prevent people or create the level of disincentive we wish to see. Have the Government looked at whether £10,000 and £100,000 are the right amounts?

On the clarification about FCA regulation, and the fact that if somebody is FCA regulated in another capacity, it may stop them from being subject to this, it is absolutely sensible that the Government have tabled the amendments. I am happy to support the changes and the clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

The Bill sets a minimum asset threshold of £25 billion for workplace pension schemes to operate as megafunds by 2030. This is not, in itself, particularly controversial, and we are all fully aware of the arguments about scale being effective when running pension funds. The requirement is intended to drive consolidation, improve economies of scale and boost investment in UK assets, but there is concern that such a high threshold could disadvantage boutique or niche funds or new entrants into the market that provide specialist services to cater for financially literate members who prefer a more tailored approach to their pension management. For example, Hargreaves Lansdown has highlighted that its £5 billion fund serves members who value investment autonomy and expertise. The risk is that the policy could reduce competition, limit consumer choice and stifle innovation by making it harder for smaller, specialist providers to operate or enter the market

Clause 38 provides little detail of the meaning of the “ability to innovate” and how “strong potential for growth” will be measured, but it is essential that the Bill provides a credible route to support innovation. If we tie the pensions market up by restricting it to a handful of large providers focused on back-book integration and building scale, there will be less space for innovation aimed at pension member engagement. The benefit of the existing market is that its diversity provides choice and creates competition, and competition is an important part of this. Smaller schemes are chosen by employers for specific reasons. If we lose that diversity and essentially create a handful of the same scheme propositions, employers and members will lose out on this benefit.

Realistically, it will be extremely challenging for new entrants to the market to have a chance of building the required scale. Our amendments create an innovation exemption for pension funds that provide specialist or innovative services as part of the new entrants clause. This will allow boutique or niche providers to continue operating if they demonstrate diversity in the market or serve a specific member need, even if they do not meet the £25 billion threshold.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Amendments 250 to 253, as well as Government amendment 113, which we will discuss later, clarify the word “innovation” and look at how best to define it. There are two different approaches from the Government and the Opposition to what innovation means. I raised the issue of defining innovation on Second Reading, so I am glad that both parties are trying to clarify it here, but I am not entirely happy with the way in which the Government have chosen to do so.

When we come to Government amendment 113, I do not feel that the chosen definition of “innovative products” is necessarily right. There could be a way of working that is innovative not in the product but in the way people access the product. For example, some of the challenger banks that we have had coming up are not necessarily providing innovative products, but they provide innovative ways to access those products, and in some cases, their pitch is that they provide a better interface for people to use. I think there is potentially a niche in the market for innovative services rather than innovative products. Government amendment 113 perhaps ties too much to products, although it depends on what the definition of “products” is.

Obviously regulations will come in behind this that define “innovative”, but I think the pitch made by the Opposition for the addition of “or specialist” is helpful. “Innovative” suggests that it may be something new, whereas there could be specialist services that are not of that size but are specific to certain groups of people who value the service they are receiving, one that is very specific to their circumstances, and who would prefer that operation to keep running and to keep having access to it because of the specialist service that is provided.

I am concerned about Government amendment 113. My views are perhaps closer to the Conservatives’ amendment, but thinking particularly about services rather than the products, and the way in which the services are provided to people and the fact that there could be innovation in that respect. Also, as the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said, there could be particular niche areas that do not need to be that size in order to provide a truly excellent service to perhaps a small group of people. It depends on how the Government define “innovative” and what the regulations may look like this, but I am inclined to support the Conservatives’ amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I am not entirely happy with the Minister’s comments. I am slightly surprised, and I thought he might have listened a bit more carefully. We absolutely understand the economies of scale. A large, £25 billion pension fund can do amazing things. We are 100% behind that. We have not disagreed with that at all. However, I somehow feel myself listening to the Minister and hearing the reverse of the arguments we were making as we tried to allow new-entrant banks into the market after the financial crisis.

Those of a certain age—and the Minister turned 43 the other day, so he will remember the financial crisis—know that the problem was that a few very big banks were spreading the contagion. I remember being on the Treasury Committee and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards after the financial crisis, when we were trying to sort out Labour’s previous mess, and not a single ab initio banking licence had been issued for 100 years. The only way that companies could get into the banking market—as Virgin and Metro were doing—was by buying dormant banking licences. I remember having long conversations—successfully, as it turned out—in order to try to allow companies such as Starling into the market. I think that Starling received the first ab initio banking licence for 100 years.

Having learned over the past 10 or 15 years about the effects of having large scale only, we are now having an argument about potentially stifling the pensions equivalent of companies such as Starling, Metro, Revolut and other innovators coming into the pensions market. I was hoping that from debating the amendments I could be convinced that the Minister would take away the thinking behind what we have come up with: that innovation should be good, and that there should permanently be new, fresh blood coming through. However, I do not think that he has got it. I was not going to push the amendments to a vote, but I now feel motivated to do so.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I want to make a brief comment about the definition of “specialist”. I appreciate the Minister’s clarification about the default products provided, but there could be a sensible definition of “specialist” that included, for example, that if providers can demonstrate that over 75% of their members engage in the management of their pension fund every year, that would be a very specialist and well-liked service. I understand that the scale is incredibly important. However, if a provider can demonstrate that level of engagement in its pension scheme, because of its innovative product or service, I think it would be sensible to look at the scale requirements, even if that provider does not yet meet them.

The Opposition have kindly left it up to the Minister and the Government to define what “specialist” would be, so I will support the Opposition amendments on that matter. However, when we come to Government amendment 113, I will require some clarification from the Minister about the definition of “products”.

Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mark Garnier

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier]

I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but suffice it to say that we all heard the evidence that was presented on Tuesday, and we in the Conservative party agree with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment. We will support it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not say much just now. I would like to hear what the Minister says, and I might bob again after that, Sir Christopher.

Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mark Garnier

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier]

Forty-third! He looks 28. None the less, I hope he is getting plenty of pension advice; who knows when he may need it?

This is a very good provision. The more informed people are about their retirement opportunities, the better. I suppose I have to declare a bit of an interest, inasmuch as I will retire in five years’ time, hopefully. It is incredibly important that people are well prepared for their retirement, and the more information a member of a pension fund has, the better it is. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will support it wholeheartedly.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I am in massive agreement with putting more investment into the provision of advice. On Tuesday, we heard the terrible stats that only 9% of people actually get advice on their pension from a financial adviser. Yet this amendment is the wrong vehicle to achieve that, given that it is looking purely at DB surpluses.

My understanding is that people who have DC pensions are much more likely to need advice than those who are on DB pensions, because that someone with a DC pension cannot tell how much they will get before they actually apply for the annuities when they retire. Their life circumstances may change between the age of 40 and hitting retirement. My understanding is that those on DB pensions have a pretty clear idea of what they are getting on a weekly, monthly or annual basis, in addition to a lump sum that they may be awarded as part of that DB pension scheme. Using the surplus created in DB schemes to fund advice for DC scheme participants would not be in the best interests of the scheme members.

I agree that we need more advice; I think that the proposal made in new clause 1 for earlier advice is incredibly important, because by the time someone gets to the age of 50-plus or very close to retirement, they do not have time to fix any issues. I would love to see people, when they are first auto-enrolled, getting advice on how much pension they are likely to get from whatever percentage of pay is put in, what a top-up looks like and how putting money into their pension as early as possible gives them the best possible outcomes in retirement, rather than panicking at the last possible moment to try to increase it.

On the mid-life MOT, free advice is already available for people at the age of 50, but it is drastically under-utilised. The Government could move in the direction of ensuring that when people get their bowel cancer check pack through the post, they also get a date and a time for an appointment with the Pensions Advisory Service, so that they do not have to proactively make it themselves. That would make a massive difference.

Successive Governments have believed that doing that would cause too much uptake and there would not be capacity to provide that service, but as we come to the generation of people who have been auto-enrolled hitting 50, when they are due that mid-life MOT, the benefits would be so great and would provide prospective pensioners with clarity about how much they could get. They could be told that taking the entire thing in cash and putting a chunk of it into a bank account is a truly terrible idea—we know that far too many people do that. I am in favour of anything that the Government can do to expand the free advice service that is there already, but I think that the funding vehicle proposed in amendment 3 is not the right way to go about it. I would like the Government to put more money into it, and many more people getting the advice that they need.

The guidance and targeted support mentioned on Tuesday are incredibly important, increasingly so as we see the trend away from DB schemes towards DC schemes. I was looking at my family’s personal pension the other day, and the amount of money in the DC pot. I do not have the faintest clue what it means. I know something about pensions, but being able to translate that large figure into a monthly amount is simply impossible until it is time to apply for the annuity, when we get the understanding of what our life circumstances look like.

I would like changes to be made to the advice given. I do not think that we are in the right position. I wonder if the review will take some of this into account. On pension sufficiency, as the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire said, people being better informed and more engaged with their pensions is an incredibly positive thing, but we are not there yet. More needs to be done to encourage people down that route.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Conservative amendment 258 would ensure that all regulations made under proposed new section 37(2A) of the Pensions Act 1995, which governs surplus payments from defined-benefit pension schemes, are subject to the affirmative procedure always, not just the first time that they are made. That would give Parliament ongoing oversight and scrutiny of any future regulations in the area. Without the amendment, regulations on defined-benefit surplus extraction would not consistently require parliamentary approval. That would potentially lead to insufficient scrutiny.

The amendment aims to provide better parliamentary control over regulations as they are introduced. The key worry is the risk that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, might use these powers to allow the payment of a surplus at funding levels below buy-out standards at some point in future, which could jeopardise scheme security and could happen without parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment is about improving the transparency and accountability of surplus extraction regulations for DB pension schemes, ensuring that Parliament maintains consistent oversight and guarding against premature surplus extractions that might undermine scheme funding security.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Liberal Democrat and Conservative amendments are very different methods to achieve a similar outcome. Conservative amendment 258 is a bit wider, in the sense that it would require the affirmative procedure for a wider range of things, but both parties are concerned about the possibility of regulations allowing a surplus below the buy-out threshold level.

I think the amendments are reasonable asks. I am generally in the habit of supporting more scrutiny of regulations; upgrading the requirements for regulations from the negative to the affirmative procedure is very much in my wheelhouse, given that it is so difficult for Parliament to oppose regulations made under the negative procedure unless the Leader of the Opposition puts their name to a motion praying against them. In practice, that very, very rarely happens. Given that both amendments are asking for relatively small changes to ensure increased parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where the threshold drops below the buy-out level, I think that they are not unreasonable. I am happy to support them both.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

These are not amendments that we feel particularly inclined to support. They would require pension fund managers to make, publish and keep under review data to show that their portfolio investments are consistent with the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change and clean energy. That would include publishing prescribed information relating to climate change alignment and sewage discharge. Those are immensely important and worthy ambitions and intentions; we share their spirit, as we want a cleaner planet, cleaner waterways and improvements to our climate, but I do not think that this is the place to do it. Pension funds should be allowed to look at the best interests of their members, irrespective of wider public and social aspirations, so this is not a proposal that we feel we can support.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I think this is the place to do it. In fact, I think every place is the place to do it. When we debated the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Act 2022, for example, I proposed that the organisation should be created on a net zero basis. I have tabled many amendments to whatever Bill I have been faced with that have included trying to meet our Paris agreement targets. I have served on Bill Committees quite a lot in the past few years—something my party keeps putting me up to do, for some reason.

The Paris agreement is the biggest issue. I have spoken already about how trustees are required to act in the interests of scheme members’ pensions rather than the interests of scheme members themselves. The Labour Government have tried to overcome that more generally, in terms of decision-making powers. They have tried to do that in Wales with the Future Generations Commissioner, who has the ability to judicially review decisions taken by public bodies in Wales. They can be called in for judicial review, and the Future Generations Commissioner can say, “This decision will cause a problem for future generations. It should be reviewed.” The Government are failing in their ambition to do the same thing in this Parliament. It is bizarre that I am about the only person in this place shouting about how great the Welsh Labour Government’s Future Generations Commissioner is—it is a really good idea.

When people out there are asked what the major issues currently facing the world are, many—particularly younger people—say that climate change is the biggest crisis we face. Scientists tell us that too, so it is completely reasonable that we ask everybody involved with anything to consider the impact of their decision making on our net zero target and on climate change. We ask all sorts of organisations to consider environmental, social and governance impacts. This is another time to do that, because we are creating a value for money framework anyway. We want value for money, but we want the best value—value for future generations. There is no point in everybody having great pensions if they do not live to see them because the planet is not here for them.

If we ask scheme members what they want, I think a significant number would say, “I would like more investment in things that make the planet a better place. I would like more investment in renewable energy and insulation for houses.” They would say that those are some of their priorities. They would obviously still like a guaranteed return too, but it is completely reasonable, in terms of the value for money framework and the best interests of people out there, that we consider the Paris climate change agreement. Sewage is important too, but it is not quite the existential crisis that climate change is.

A value for money framework must look at value for money in a wider sense. One of the things we have spoken about in Scotland a significant number of times is population wellbeing. The Scottish Government are finally members of the Wellbeing Economy Alliance. That is not necessarily about saying that GDP is not important; it is about saying that gross domestic wellbeing is important, and that sometimes we must take decisions that are slightly more expensive but will have a significantly less negative, or more positive, impact on the planet or the wellbeing of the population.

When we think about a value for money framework, it is completely reasonable to talk about the Paris agreement. It is completely reasonable to ask about it in respect of any Government decision. I have written to the Chancellor in the past to ask for a carbon assessment to be published alongside the Budget—what is the impact on the Paris climate change agreement of the tax and spending decisions taken in the Budget, and how do they get us closer to our target?

I am happy to support all the amendments. As the hon. Member for Torbay said, they are not about forcing people to take decisions that are net zero in nature; they are about forcing them to consider the Paris agreement, or the regulatory targets for sewage discharges, when taking decisions. I do not think it is too much for us to ask trustees to be mindful of the impact on the planet of the decisions they are taking.

The vast majority of people in my constituency do not have significant savings. If we look at the general population, we see that about 50% of people have less than 100 quid in savings. They have very little money and are not able to invest in renewables projects. They are not able to direct their money because they do not have any money to invest. What a lot of them do have, following auto-enrolment, is pots of money invested in pensions, but they have very little ability to influence how that money is spent. Scheme trustees have a significant amount of ability to influence where money is invested, but scheme members do not, in the main, have that ability. If we asked people where they would like to see their pensions invested, many of them would pick things that might offer slightly less of a return but are significantly better for the planet. The aims in the amendments are admirable and I am happy to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 10, page 10, line 20, at end insert—

“(2A) Value for money regulations must require responsible trustees and managers to make an assessment of, benchmark and regularly report the—

(a) net benefit outcomes,

(b) investment performance,

(c) quality of service, and

(d) long term members outcomes

of regulated VFM schemes.”

This amendment broadens the definition of value for money to require assessment of net benefit outcome, investment performance, quality of service, and long-term member outcomes, and require schemes to report on these.

On the wider point about value for money, we broadly support the introduction of a robust value for money framework as set out in clause 10. The framework, which was initially introduced under the previous Government, is essential to promoting transparency and accountability in the management of defined-contribution pension schemes, and it mandates responsible trustees or managers to assess and publish reports on the performance of their schemes. Ultimately, that should mean improved performance. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that there are potentially perverse outcomes —as we have seen, for example, with the Phoenix Group—as the consequences of an intermediate rating could drive less growth. I suppose it could be a less risky approach, but greater risk can lead to greater growth. None the less, we need to be careful as there could be perverse outcomes.

I tabled the amendment as we are worried that the current value for money framework for defined-contribution pensions risks focusing too narrowly on costs and charges as the primary determinant of value for members. By contrast, the Australian superannuation system adopts a more holistic definition of value for money, including a net benefit outcome metric, which is defined as the sum of contributions and investment earnings minus all costs, fees, taxes and insurance premiums. Australian trustees are required not only to consider costs, but to act in members’ best financial interests, broadly encompassing factors beyond merely minimising fees. The Australian framework incorporates additional core metrics including service quality, investment performance and member outcomes. This broader approach reflects a more comprehensive assessment of value for money delivered to members.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify what “long term members outcomes” means? Does it mean people that have been members of the scheme for a long time, or does it mean members’ outcomes over the long term? The amendment is ambiguous.

[Mark Garnier]

That is a very good question. Ultimately it means, “What is the performance of the fund?” Members’ best interests can include a lot of different things, but ultimately we need to see the fund grow with the best performance it possibly can, given all things brought together. When members start to receive their pensions, they will therefore get the best terms they possibly can.

We run the risk of trying to look at the wrong definition. For example, there has been an argument recently about the local government pension scheme—this came up earlier this week—with the Reform party talking about the fact that the scheme is charging 50 basis points. The argument is that reducing it to 10 basis points would save money. However, as I was discussing with a Government Back Bencher the other day, one of the problems is that if fees are too low, that reduces the ability of the managers to assess more complicated financial opportunities. If fees are kept at 50 basis points, the capacity to start analysing unlisted investments is retained. If fees are reduced to 10 basis points, the ability and skill of the managers to look into more than investing in other people’s funds or into simple listed equities is reduced. If we start to look at it as a cost-based issue only, we miss out the fact that we get quite a lot of extra expertise if slightly higher management fees are paid.

The Australian framework incorporates additional core metrics including service quality, investment performance and outcomes. There is a concern that the UK value for money framework overemphasises costs and risks discouraging investment in asset classes, as I discussed, that historically produced higher returns but that might have higher shorter-term fees or complexities. This narrow focus could also dampen innovation in pension scheme design and reduce member engagement, ultimately harming long-term retirement outcomes for scheme members. It may be valuable to learn from the Australian approach by developing a value for money framework that balances cost transparency with metrics that encourage good investment strategies and quality services, aligning regulators’ and trustees’ incentives with members’ long-term financial interests.

Our amendment tries to broaden the definition of value for money using the Australian model as a template. It would require the assessment of net benefit outcome, investment performance, quality of service and long-term member outcomes, not just cost. It would introduce a requirement for schemes to report and benchmark across these holistic measures, thereby enabling a more balanced and meaningful comparison of value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

This seems like a very technical clause, and we certainly have no objections to it. I also have no doubt that we will not be voting against the Government amendment. I think we are very happy with it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I have a similar question to the one I had earlier. We need to ensure that those responsible for generating the data are kept in the loop and that they have enough of a timeline to create the correct data. The Government must listen if they say, “We’re very sorry, but we can’t this bit of data in the way that the Government want.” I seek reassurance from the Government that this would be a conversation, so that the Government get the data they want, but that an unreasonable burden will not be placed on the trustees or managers who have to provide that data. That conversation needs to continue as time goes on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Broadly, we welcome clause 20, which builds on important work that was started under the previous Government to address the issue of small, dormant pension pots. This is a critical step forward to consolidate small pots, which can otherwise be costly and inefficient both for pension schemes and, importantly, for their members. However, we have some concerns about certain aspects of the measure that require further scrutiny.

Notably, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to change the monetary value that defines a small pot at a later date. Although that is a logical measure that will probably need to be exercised as the small pots regime becomes more established, there is a risk that drastic changes to the minimum pot size could significantly alter the defined-contribution market in unintended ways. In particular, the potential market impact on schemes serving members with lower average account balances needs to be carefully considered. Automatically consolidating larger pots could reshape the market landscape, affecting members and schemes differently across the spectrum. Pensions UK has suggested that any future increases in the monetary value of the definition of a small pot should be subject to robust consultation with industry stakeholders, alongside an independent market impact assessment, to understand fully the ramifications of such changes.

The Liberal Democrat point is extremely important. I hope that the Minister will verify how the small pot size was set at £1,000. The amendment seeks to increase that to £2,000, but why not £5,000 or lower it to £500? It is very difficult.

The other problem with the clause is that a small pot defined as inactive could be inactively invested—for example, sitting in an index fund for 10 years without anybody worrying about it—and have crept up or down in value. It could be £1,005 one day and £995 the next. Does that change it from being an okay pot to a small pot, and therefore due for consolidation? This is a very difficult measure. Inevitably, it comes to the point of where it is defined. Similarly, will the amount be indexed against inflation, or against the stock market indices? How will the Secretary of State decide to increase it?

There are so many questions about this. My gut feeling is that £1,000 is too small, but equally that it is incredibly difficult to determine what the right size is. I look forward to the Minister extensively discussing with the Committee exactly how he came to £1,000 and not £1,001, £999 or indeed any other number.

[Kirsty Blackman]

There is possibly cross-party consensus that there is no perfect answer to this problem, but there are lots of wrong answers. If the value had been set at £100,000 or at £1, those would have been very wrong answers. I applaud the way the Liberal Democrats have approached this, by looking at the responses they have received and being willing to flex on the basis of them. I hope the Minister has approached the numbers in the same way.

This amendment is a test of change. It is asking, “Does this work? Does this make a difference?” Whatever value the Government chooses to set the limit at, we will see if it works. At that stage, the Government can assess whether it was the right level or not. This comes back to the point that I made during the evidence sessions about monitoring and evaluation of whether this has worked and how the Government will measure whether it has worked as intended. At what stage will the Government look at that?

At what stage after implementation will the Government make a call about whether the measure has achieved their aims, or whether the number needs to be flexed to meet the aims not just of the Government, but of savers, active and inactive, in their pensions, who would quite like to get a decent return when they hit pension age but perhaps do not have the capacity, the ability, or the time to be involved in actually making the decisions about moving and consolidating the pots.

It would be helpful if the Minister gave us some clarity about what monitoring and evaluation will look like, and about why £1,000 was chosen, so that we can understand the rationale. As I said, there is probably wide agreement that there are quite a few wrong answers but no perfect answer, and this is possibly the best that we are going to get at this moment.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Kirsty Blackman and Mark Garnier

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

The former City Minister raises a good and important point. He tries to bring together a number of related but quite disparate issues that we need to think carefully about. I would not want to make Conservative party policy on the hoof at the Dispatch Box, though the Minister urges me to do so. These are important points, and I think my right hon. Friend would understand that I would not want to rush into anything without careful, considered thought. These are issues on which he and I—and the Minister, of course—might get together.

As I said, we need a bold, ambitious plan to ensure that every worker in this country can look forward to a retirement free from poverty and insecurity. That means looking again at contribution rates, the role of employers and how we support those who are excluded from the system.

Another omission in the Bill is the failure to extend the benefits of auto-enrolment to the self-employed. There are over 4 million self-employed people in the UK—people who are driving our economy, creating jobs and taking risks. Too many of them face the prospect of old age in poverty, with little or no private pension provision. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that only 20% of self-employed workers earning over £10,000 a year save into a private pension. With the self-employed sector continuing to grow, the Bill misses an opportunity to come up with innovative solutions for this underserved group in the workplace.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On auto-enrolment, the other missing group is those aged under 22. Auto-enrolment seemed to be set up with the view that people would go to university before entering the jobs market, but that is not the case for many people. It is possible that starting auto-enrolment earlier would mean much more adequate pension pots for people, because the earlier they save, the bigger their pot grows by the time they reach retirement.

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The earlier people start putting money in, the better. As a result of compound interest, over many years they will end up with a bigger pension pot, even if at the beginning the contribution is quite small; the amount aggregates over a long period. We will discuss that in Committee.

We are concerned about the lack of detail in the Bill. Too much is left to the discretion of regulators and to secondary legislation. Parliament deserves to have proper oversight of these reforms. From my discussions with the industry, it seems there is tentative support for many of the reforms in the Bill. However, the message that keeps coming back is that the devil will be in the detail, so I hope that as this Bill makes progress through the House, the Minister will be able to fill in more of the blanks—and I am sure he will; he is a diligent individual.

I move on to the most important thing that this Bill hopes to achieve: growth. We want to support Labour Members on the growth agenda, but too often they go about it in slightly the wrong way. Surpluses in defined-benefit pension schemes are a great example. Interest rates have risen post-covid, and that has pushed many schemes into surplus. In principle, we support greater flexibility when it comes to the extraction of these surpluses, but there need to be robust safeguards; that is certainly the message coming back from the industry.

Under the legislation, there is nothing to stop these surpluses being used for share buy-backs or dividend payments from the host employer, for instance. Neither of these outcomes necessarily help the Government’s growth agenda. We would welcome a strengthening of the Bill to prevent trustees from facing undue pressure from host employers to release funds for non-growth purposes. In addition, to provide stability, the Government should carefully consider whether low dependency, rather than buy-out levels, will future-proof the funds, so that they do not fall back into deficit.

Although the Government are keen to extract surpluses from the private sector, there is not the same gusto shown in the Bill when it comes to local government pensions. The House has discussed in detail the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, not least earlier today. Under the revised rules introduced by the Chancellor, the measure of public debt has shifted from public sector net debt to public sector net financial liabilities. As a consequence, the local government pension scheme’s record £45 billion surplus is now counted as an asset that offsets Government debt. This gives the Chancellor greater headroom to meet her fiscal targets—headroom that, dare I say it, is shrinking week by week. I do not wish to sound cynical, but perhaps that is the reason why the Bill is largely silent on better using these surpluses. This may be a convenient accounting trick for the Chancellor, but the surpluses could have been used, for instance, to give councils pension scheme payment holidays. The Government could make it easier to follow the example set by Kensington and Chelsea, which has suspended employer pension contributions for a year to fund support to victims and survivors of the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy. These revenue windfalls could be redirected towards a range of initiatives, from local growth opportunities such as business incubators to improving our high streets. We could even leave more money in council tax payers’ pockets.

I turn to the part of the Bill on which we have our most fundamental disagreement: the provisions on mandation. The Bill reserves the power to mandate pension funds to invest in Government priorities. That not only goes against trustees’ fiduciary duties—although I appreciate and recognise the point the Minister made earlier—but means potentially worse outcomes for savers. Pensions are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent a lifetime of work, sacrifice, and hope for a secure future. The people who manage these funds and their trustees are under a legal duty to prioritise the financial wellbeing of savers. Their job is not to obey political whims, but to invest prudently, grow pension pots and uphold the trust placed in them by millions of ordinary people.

That fiduciary duty is not a technicality; it is the bedrock of confidence that the entire pension system rests on. These pension fund managers find the safest and best investments for our pensions, no matter where in the world they might be. If things go wrong, we can hold them to account. But if this reserve power becomes law, we have to ask the question: if investments go wrong, who carries the can? Will it be the pension fund manager and the trustees, or the Government, who did the mandation?

Likewise, while the reserve power in the Bill focuses on the defined-contribution market, the shift in emphasis has potentially profound impacts across the sector. UK pension funds, along with insurance companies, hold approximately 30% of the UK Government’s debt or gilt market. If mature defined-benefit schemes move from the gilt market to equities, that potentially has a profound impact on the Government’s debt management, or ability to manage debt, and therefore interest rates and mortgage rates. For that reason, we would welcome the Minister confirming whether any concerns have been raised by the Debt Management Office, and possibly the Bank of England. There is widespread opposition from across the industry to this power—I am approaching the end of my speech, you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are better ways for the Government to deliver growth, such as changing obsolete rules and removing restrictions.

In the annuity market, solvency rules prevent insurers from owning equity in productive UK assets. Wind farms, for example, deliver stable returns through contracts for difference and contribute to the Government’s green agenda. They could be an ideal match for long-term annuity investments, while also delivering clean energy. Releasing the limits on the ability of insurers to fully deploy annuity capital has the potential to unlock as much as £700 billion by 2035, according to research by Aviva. Rather than imposing top-down mandates, we want the Government to maximise growth opportunities from our pension industry by turning over every stone and seeking out the unintended consequences of old regulations, not imposing new ones.

I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will be delighted to hear. [Interruption.] Yes, I have taken a lot of interventions. We reaffirm our commitment to working constructively with the Government. Stability in the markets is of paramount importance, and we recognise the need for a collaborative approach as the Bill progresses through the House. We will bring forward amendments where we believe improvements can be made, and we will engage in good faith with Ministers and officials to get the detail right.

We want to go with, not against, the grain of what the Government are seeking to achieve through this Bill, and I look forward to working with the Minister in the weeks and months ahead.